as much as I enjoyed this novel and the fact that it was one of the few fiction readings rather than what we have been focusing mainly on, I am a little unclear about how this is considered a remake/remodel of the last reading.

As per usual, it always takes me a little research to find out more about the books and to understand them more, but with this book especially, I had to take my research up a little, especially with all the symbolism and just the allegory content of this that I just couldn’t understand on my own.

Aside from the interesting texts, themes and motifs, one thing that really grabbed my attention was the title. Im the kind of person that gets really attracted to the title and the cover.

What exactly is the heart of darkness? It’s really weird to me. When I think of darkness, I think of black, heartless, cold.. the heart of darkness..would it be what is the cause of darkness? What is the center of darkness? Darkness and the heart of itself and within? I dont know my mind is really jumbled right now.

I need to read the book again now that I’ve read about the symbolisms and themes behind a lot of things because to be honest I was really confused the whole book.

I feel like we’ll have a lot of interesting questions in seminar so I cant wait to share my thoughts..hopefully I’ll have gathered up better things to say about the book.

ciao.

Discard the title.

excuse my word vomit:

Reading “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman”, I found myself very confused to where I stood with Wollstone on her arguments.

One thing that I feel really strongly about with Wollstone was her argument that went along the lines of rationality and how women should stop using their feelings for reasoning and instead think rationally and fundamentally. Although I agree with that argument, I don’t believe that women are the only ones who think with their feelings…and also that thinking with feelings is necessarily a bad thing.

i. It’s not only women who think with their feelings. Men think with their feelings a lot too. Their anger and pride, especially in the earlier years, drove their decisions.

ii. Thinking with your feelings isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I’m the kind of girl who “thinks with her heart”, and although I probably sound all flowery and not sensible at all (especially to wollstone maybe), I think that it is so important to consider your feelings when making decisions. Feelings aren’t irrational. What is irrational is making a decision that you don’t feel right about. She talks about rationality and how women should practice it and think with their brains and be sensible and all this “masculine” things, and although I believe that women and men should have equal rights (which makes me a feminist I guess), doesn’t mean that the things we do should be the same. Being equal doesn’t mean being identical. It doesn’t mean that girls need to be more masculine or have to prove ourselves. Can’t we be equal and have rights by just being ourselves? By doing what we want? If I want to be a girly girl, I will be a girly girl. But that doesn’t mean that I am not as important as a very masculine man.

People come in different shapes. Sizes. Thoughts. and Opinions.

but what I feel from this is that we shouldn’t base our equalness on how we act. We’re all human. No matter what you think or feel or relay yourself and your feelings.

Sorry for vomitting words. I broke my contacts so reading this page is really blurry and makes my head hurt so bye.

another book that i enjoy!

In seminar today we talked about multiple personality disorder, or which is now renamed as “dissociative identity disorder” and that really sparked my interest because I love psychology and studying it and learning how so many cases diagnosed under the same case can vary tremendously.

I find it amazing how women and men alike can have different identities that range from ages, sexes and even ethnicities…

What interested me a lot from lecture is when it is mentioned that Locke says:

“For, since consciousness always accompanies thinking, and it is that which makes every one to be what he calls self…in this alone consists personal identity, i.e., the sameness of a rational being; and as far back as this consciousness can be extended backwards to a past action or thought, so far reaches the identity of that person.” (Licke, pg. 39)

You are what you remember. If you don’t remember, it wasn’t you.

I find this extremely interesting because as we touched on in lecture for a little bit, does this include when you are drunk? Or memories from when you are little? Or even forgetting what someone has said or a promise you had told someone from a long time ago…

Personally, I am a super forgetful person  when it comes to memories. When my cousins or siblings bring up a memory about me, it is rare of me to actually remember it.

So does that mean that mean that it was someone else?? Or…??

I like the whole discussion about memories and how “We constitute our souls by making up our lives, that is by weaving stories about our past by what we call memories.” (Freud)

Is Freud suggesting that our memories are made up? That we “weave” or “make up” stories about our past to make a “memory” worth recalling in order to make up who we are today?

I also find the “looping” effects very interesting and in fact very accurate. I find that, personally, I act differently around different people not because I am two faced or anything, but because they perceive me in different ways and that I have to live up to their expectation of who I am. First impressions usually stick pretty well to people, so in a lot of ways, I find that people live up to a label that people have labelled them at first UNLESS they want to show the other person that they are WRONG. I act differently in front of my family, my super close friends, my new friends, and the people I work with because they all have labelled me differently and I don’t want to prove them wrong  because that may cause a strain in our relationship…or because that is the personality that comes out when I am with a different type of people. Not sure if I made sense there but yeah… It depends how your personality clicks with different people that causes you to act differently?

Anyway, I feel like as a society, we make up people a lot  especially with stereotyping. If you dress or look a certain way or are interested in eating or behaving a certain way, you are labelled accordingly. A label that is made to “fit your personality”…to fit your description. And the labelling and description changes regularly. I feel like that is why so many people have so many identity crisis’ and don’t really know who they are.

Anyway, I feel like my blog post is getting really long and boring for you to read so I will probably end here.

Thanks for reading!

Jocelyn

I’m really happy that we are finally getting into the books that I find interesting and actually enjoy reading!

As I said in seminar today to my groupies, I find it completely strange when I think about race  and how people are still excluded from different things or treated differently because of who they are. It is weird to think that the history books we read about discrimination and racism are from merely 50 years ago and how it is still presented in today’s society.

Although we focused on the intro and conclusion in today’s seminar, the topic of and the word “white-washed” cam e up quite a few times and it is weird how that word is interpreted. I consider myself 100% “white-washed” and often forget that I am not of Filipino-Chinese decent since I live alone and  do not practice or even see any Filipino or Chinese food, traditions, or even hear the language anymore. I kind of find it sad that when I tell people I am Canadian (because I do not consider myself any Filipino or Chinese), I have to clarify and tell them that I am “white-washed”. It definitely reminds me of a part in the book where I can’t find right now where he says that we are tied to our image, that black people will always be viewed “black” and white people will always be viewed as “white”, being “tied to an image that we are not responsible for” (18).

Another quote that really stuck out to me was:

“Subjectively and intellectually the Antillean behaves like a white man. But in fact he is a black man. He’ll realize that once he gets to Europe” (126)

this quote makes me feel both happy and sad.

When I first read it I felt sad because It says that no matter how he acts. No matter how educated, proper and “white-washed” a coloured person can be in their own civilization, once they go to another region, they will be treated differently in another way. In a less civilized way.

The reason it makes me happy is because although I am completely “white-washed” and although through the years equality between races will hopefully be a completely natural thing, I will still have my roots. I will still be able to go back to my ancestors country and see their society and their way of living. I am proud of my roots and I believe that everyone should be proud of their roots too. That even if equality between different races is reached, that people from Canada would be able to look at a “white-washed” Asian and be able to say “Wow, it is so cool that your ancestors came from China! They have really interesting traditions and awesome food” and stuff like that. I feel like a lot of people are ashamed* of their roots if they are completely white-washed when that shouldn’t be the case at all.

I don’t know where I’m really going with this. This post went from a lot of different thoughts. So yeah I’ll just end it. ahah.

I also really liked Jon’s lecture the because I felt that he touched on every topic and question that I had in mind and that it was really interesting!

*ashamed as in telling people “no, my ancestors may be from Asia but I DEFINITELY DO NOT HOLD THE SAME TRADITIONS. I mean it’s fine to have your own traditions and be able to carry Canadian or American traditions and stuff, but different countries around the world have super interesting traditions, religions, foods…it would be a shame to try to erase all of that from your lives!!

P.S: Sorry for the late post! I usually write what I have to do for the day in my agenda, and since “blog post” wasn’t in it, I assumed it wasn’t my week…SO I FIXED IT SO NOW IT WILL BE ON TIME.

P.P.S: B.F.A audition prepping is really stressful and consumed my mind since…December. So wish me luck and please forgive my tardiness and spaciness for the next week.

Joc 🙂

So I did not realize that this week was my week to blog so here is another post from yours truly.

Let me start off by saying that Macs are very hard to work with and I deleted this post 100x before publishing this (accidentally). Anyway, I used to collect Jane Austen books as a high school student and although I started the books “Emma”, “Pride and Prejudice” and “Sense and Sensibility”, I found Austen’s texts really hard to get into. The only book I really “finished” was “Pride and Prejudice” because I’ve seen it so many times in theatres that it was easy enough to follow along. That being said, I was really dreading reading Northanger Abbey and afraid that I would hate it. 

Was I ever wrong.

Northanger Abbey is probably the easiest text to read (so far) for me and I got into it pretty quickly. I loved Austen’s style of writing in this book and found it a lot easier to visualize the story and follow along. I like how she added a gothic tone to her traditional romantic story; this made it a lot easier to read.

After reading this book, I realized that Catherine is a little different than the usual Austen character. Although she was plain and mousy and was not like any other girl (like a lot of Austen’s characters in other books), I liked how she was curious and suspicious about the place she was living in. I felt like Catherine had a real personality so it was easier to relate to her and picture the scenes.

I like how different this text was from Austen’s other works and how the book was funny, romantic, gothic, and altogether very well written.

Anyway, I want to know what everyone else thinks of this book and things they want to discuss! Maybe ill actually talk about this book in class because I just really liked it!

So before this entire post accidentally gets erased , tata for now.

back to monologue memorizing.

– joc, xoxo

This book was far more interesting than a lot of the books that we have read in the past and I’m glad I got through it. I think that it was easier to get into because it was a novel (I was super excited when I found out that this reading was going to be a novel rather than …not a novel or play) and although the first couple pages were a little tougher to get through, once I got into it, I really enjoyed it.

I do agree that this book did have more historical episodes than a novel would usually have, but that is what I liked about it.  I love learning historic things with a little bit of fiction and magic in it, it makes it interesting and makes me want to research it more at home.

To be honest, before this course, I did not know a thing about the Haitian Revolution and now I am glad to know about it.
I am glad that Carpentier wrote this novel partially indifferent to both sides; making me sympathetic and angry at both sides of the war in different sections. The fact that he did that added realism to the book, but I also agree that is also why this book might have been more of a series of historical episodes rather than a novel.

As weird as this may sound, I really liked Pauline Bonaparte, haha. I don’t know why I just liked her character. Despite all the darkness in this novel, I did enjoy reading it and I can’t wait until next term when we dig into more interesting texts (at least to me)!

Joc

Rousseau is a fantastic writer and I am super happy that after weeks of looking at Leviathan…and to be honest, not even reading more than 10 pages of it, that we got to read this book.
Rousseau is such a smooth writer and before the lecture, I agreed with everything he was saying and admired his writing skills, his points, and how he supported his points.

As Crawford pointed out though, Rousseau can get a little confusing and after the lecture, I don’t know if I really like Rousseau anymore. Saying that, I have to admit that I absolutely love this quote:

“It became customary to gather in front of the Huts or around a large Tree: song and dance, true children of love and leisure, became the amusement or rather the occupation of idle men and women gathered together. Everyone began to look at everyone else and to wish to be looked at himself, and public esteem acquired a price. The one who sang or danced best; the handsomest, the strongest, the most skillful, or the most eloquent came to be the most highly regarded, and this was the first step towards inequality and vice: from these first preferences arose vanity and contempt on the one hand, shame and envy on the other; and the fermentation caused by these new leavens eventually produced compounds fatal to happiness and innocence.”

It really speaks to me because it says how pleasurable things such as singing, dancing, playing music, etc. became something of competition rather than amusement and something to do for fun and to relax yourself with. Instead of being a fun activity, it became something that people stress out over. Something that people have grown envious over. I think that this quote really did support his argument. Look at singers and dancers all over the world now. All of the countless reality tv competitions and how much drama and envy that the media has supported through this. Instead of being merely a passion, these leisurely things became something much more…something that craves attention from others and constantly asks to be admired. People have spoiled the initial beauty of arts like that and instead use it for their own selfishness. It kind of makes me sad because I absolutely love singing and dancing as well, and when I was younger, I would write music, sing, dance and play instruments by myself without caring about who was listening, and when I grew older, I started to face competitions and get all of this attention from everyone and now I’m super selfish about my music and talents and constantly want people to admire it…. It’s really sad how passion for something can turn into something different such as just wanting attention from it. Don’t get me wrong, my passion for the art is still strong, but I feel like I’ve been focusing on who is listening rather than what I’m doing more lately. I really want to change that.

When I first bought all of the books, I looked at “The Master and Margarita” and immediately dreaded reading it. Being on the thick side, I thought that the book was going to be extremely hard to get through. I am glad to be proven wrong. Although I found the first chapter of the book very interesting, it wasn’t until the second book that I got hooked. I really liked Margarita’s character and thought her presence in the second book made me enjoy it a lot more.

I loved how this book (as long as it is) is just full of different themes and ideas: good and evil, courage and cowardice, innocence and guilt, sin and redemption, the ability to bring on your own fate…. I just found that it was full of material that is going to be fun to write about in the essay.

i found it really funny/ironic how careless people were with their words especially about religion(God and the Devil), especially when the Devil is amongst them and just waiting to be provoked. when the characters, such as petrovich yells ,”The devil take me,” using the term “devil” in the form of a curse word, just like using God’s name, they die (disappear). I felt like these situations really highlighted the theme of having the ability to bring out your own fate. this theme is extremely evident especially when Margarita says “Really, I would pawn my soul to the devil to find out whether he is alive or dead.”.. Which she does. Haha.

Just like Devin, my favorite part is also the Satanic Ball. The characters that attended the party were really interesting…I don’t know why but it kind of reminded my of the parade of seven deadly sins in faustus, maybe because it was just an interesting part in the book…?

I also really loved this quote:

“But would you kindly ponder this question: What would your good do if evil didn’t exist, and what would the earth look like if all the shadows disappeared? After all, shadows are cast by things and people. Here is the shadow of my sword. But shadows also come from trees and living brings. Do you want to strip the earth of all trees and living things just because of your fantasy of enjoying naked light.”

I liked this quote because I felt like it had a direct connection with the first quote that Bulgakov threw in on the first page of the book : ” I am part of that power which eternally wills evil and eternally works good” -Goethe, Faust.
These quotes really outline the theme of good and evil in this book and proving that one can really not go with out the other. That evil supports the good and that good is a necessity for evil to happen. That every outcome comes with a good and evil.

Yeah… Sorry for the late upload. I had it saved in my drafts and totally forgot about finishing it up and posting it until I realized that I had my presentation tomorrow. That’s what happens with endless hours of practicing opera and musical rehearsing. Ciao.

-Joc

So I finally got home after hiding out in a coffee shop after work because some creepy old man came up to me and told me i was going to marry him and have his babies so here is my blog post.

First of all, I’m gonna have to agree with Andrew here when I say that I actually liked Antigone’s Claim, even if it was pretty dry at some parts and definitely confusing…I have to admit that I probably only started to understand what was going on in the book after Jill’s awesome lecture today.

My favourite part about Antigone’s Claim is that it touches on the fact that Antigone has been interpreted and read by so many different people and that everyone has a different lens on while reading Antigone (which is probably why our discussions can go on forever on this play in seminars). Well now you get to see this is through my lens.

Looking at Antigone in a more modern perspective, I do believe that she portrays the character of a female more than a male,  and although I have a couple reasons, this is my biggest one:
Her stubbornness and determination:
Let’s all be honest here. Women are probably the MOST stubborn things (LOL, things) in the world (well at least I am)…I look at Antigone and just by the way she is so determined to bury Polyneices-regardless of the the fact that she’ll be breaking a law- just screams out at me of how strong of a woman she is… Even in the context of this book (era wise), women have always been stubborn and determined to stick to their duties. In Antigone times, women had a DUTY to serve their husbands and to their families…and to me, Antigone sticks to these duties like glue. Some people interpret Antigone’s strong dedication to bury Polyneices and longing for death as an incestful act, and if this is true, then in Antigone’s mind, she might be “married” to him, therefore has a duty to serve him a final time by ensuring that he has a proper burial. I think that women have always been very stubborn and determined. Once they set their mind to something (regardless of their citizenship), they carry it through, especially when taking family and duties into account.

In addition to this, I am so glad that the lecture touched on this question, which has always confused me. What is Antigone’s Claim? And mostly, what are her intentions?
In lecture, Jill says that Antigone’s Claim is ambiguity, which makes total sense to me, because who can really tell what her claim is?

As I read Antigone, I was confused as to why Antigone wanted to be loud about burying her brother and so determined to be caught publicly. It honestly just boggled my mind. Antigone got away with the burial during her first try and if she told Creon that she did not bury Polyneices, he probably would have let her get away with it easily, but instead, Antigone wanted to make it as public as possible. BUT WHY?!?! Ugh. If she wanted to bury her brother because she loved him, then why not just bury him out of love and end it at that. Why seek so much attention after breaking the law? It actually still doesn’t make very much sense to me, but in reference to the lecture, it doesn’t have to! She’s ambiguous for a reason, and everything that she does doesn’t really need to be read into so deeply.

On page 4 in Antigone’s Claim, Butler refers to Irigaray as he refers to a section in Hegel’s text where he says that Antigone is “the eternal irony of the community”, and to me, that stuck out a lot, I’ll probably do my presentation on that so I’m not really going to elaborate on it right now.

I could be totally wrong in your opinion, but that’s the beauty of Antigone and Antigone’s Claim; There are just so many different lenses you can see this through.

Anyway I don’t know if I’ve made any sense here because I’ve been sick all week and stuck memorizing scripts, working 9 hour days, studying for my psych midterm-which I’m screwed for- tomorrow, prepping for auditions, trying to make it for cheer, and overall getting 4 hours of sleep at the most each night..so yeah I’m going to do laundry now and sit in the laundry room and study so I can stay awake. Enough of my whining, bye bye.

-j .

So after hours of trying to get through this text, constantly closing and opening the book, and rereading line after line, here is my blog on Gorgias by Plato.

Throwing my emotions in this, while I was reading the text, I would constantly get annoyed by Socrates and his consistent questioning towards the other characters, even after they said,  “Hey look, let’s just drop this”. I don’t think I really like him. To me, Socrates seems very proud and sarcastic and although some may say otherwise, I think that he likes seeing others realize they’re wrong more than being right himself. When Callicles criticizes Socrates and his passion and profession in Philosophy, it seems as if Socrates just brushes Callicles off, unhurt, and goes on with the conversation, continuously questioning the other characters and their beliefs/morals.

I think that really good topics and debates were included in this text such as “art vs. knack”, morals, justice, etc. and that through this text the readers can find themselves grow into (or out of) an opinion they used to have through the dialogue of these characters. I feel like this text actually made me think about the questions Socrates would ask and how I would answer them.

One part that I found pretty funny was when Callicles tells Socrates that he has had enough and that Socrates should just continue the argument with himself, which, as strange as Socrates is to be made out of Plato, obliges, carrying out quite a hefty monologue of him asking himself questions and answering them himself, and telling his audience to correct him if something sounds wrong (which really would be impossible because I feel that no one would be able to interrupt Socrates successfully…that man can talk)

Sometimes I feel bad for Socrates because as annoying as he is, he is probably just trying to help other people strengthen their beliefs and sees his tactics that way…

On a less professional note (lol like the above was ever professional):

I feel like Socrates just talks SOOOOO much. If I was ever in conversation with Socrates, I’d honestly just get up and walk away. I don’t even understand how someone could be in conversation with other people like that and not be stopped in the middle of their argument because oh my gosh he is so wordy. I could never be friends with him.

Looking at everyone else’s blogs, I feel like mine is really below the bar but I really don’t know what else I would like to add to this blog so yeah.

K bye.